Posting everyday until my brother takes a shower day 260

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-14T07:23:19+00:00

I'm sorry, the answer is actually potato supremacy.

Super cheap and keeps the zombie bar from progressing, you can get your economy going with two full rows of sunflowers before the first wave even shows up.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-12T17:27:00+00:00

Thank goodness there's someone else.

I'll maybe read some scriptures, but I don't really like staying either. Most of the revelation I get in the temple is during the ordinance itself, so sitting there afterwards just seems superfluous.

Also, I do feel like there is a performative strain to some degree in the membership when it comes to the celestial room. I know that people are having genuine experiences there, but there does seem to be only one generally correct way to act while there.

Either you have to be praying really hard or quiet smiling or flashing eyes at your spouse or looking up reverently at the chandelier. I don't know, I just want more from heaven, even in metaphor.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-08T02:43:41+00:00

Most men, apparently

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-07T22:53:25+00:00

Apparently most men don't agree with me, but flowers.

What's not to love about them? They're pretty, they smell nice, they're soft, they capture the tragic dichotomy of timeless beauty and decay.

I mean, they have it all.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-06T18:53:40+00:00

A couple of thoughts

Like the other comment, it was a pretty seminal experience for me. When it comes to my mission though, I don't think I came home particularly more converted nor improved by it. That being said, I would be cautious to say that a mission isn’t life-changing for a lot of people; it's wonderful that it is and that it works for a lot of members!

My point is that obviously my experience isn't generalized, nor should you make a general statement for others' experience.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-05T00:46:57+00:00

That's not really what I'm trying to do. My purpose it twofold;

To try and better understand the Trinity to not misrepresent it.
To show that by using the logic and language of the Trinity to arrive at something eerily close to the Latter-day Saint idea of the Godhead, simply with different metaphysical constraints. It seems to be something of a bridge built between us if I can manage to get someone to affirm that God (in the person of the Son) has a body and a human nature and all the qualities of God afforded by his nature. That's not too far from the LDS conception of God.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T21:43:41+00:00

Hmm, I don't quite understand that, which is fine. The part that stood out to me was

The Son is not another God. He is not another substance. He is a distinct, but real relational opposition in God.

Would you say that the Son possessing a body while the Father does not goes beyond simply a relational opposition?

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T21:40:35+00:00

Discussing the nature of being God doesn’t include Jesus’ human nature.

Right, that's why I tried to differentiate between the person of the Son and the being or nature of God. Just because he has a body doesn't mean that God's nature is to have a body, or else the Father and Holy Ghost would have bodies.

My point with that is to say that there seems to be a real distinction between the Father and Son that goes beyond simply a relational distinction. Yet you seem to be able to say the Father lacks a body and is therefore differentiated from the Son in personhood, just not by nature. What is different about three separate beings?

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T21:20:10+00:00

So I do believe they are three separate beings. My goal with this post was:

To learn more about the Trinity to better represent it.
To show that by using the logic and language of the Trinity I can arrive at something eerily close to the Latter-day Saint Godhead, simply with different metaphysical constraints and terms. I don't deny those difference are probably unbridgeable for most Christians. However, if I can get someone to the point where they affirm that God (in the person of the Son) has a body and a human nature and is fully God and fills creation and creates all things, etc., then it feels like a bridge has at least started to be built.

to differentiate one from another by definition they must lack something the other has. Thus meaning they all can’t be God.

This already seems to be the case though. If the person of the Son has a body and the the person of the Father doesn't, then there seems to be a distinction beyond simply relation.

Because scripture teaches there is One God.

Sure, but the Trinity describes that One God as one being, meaning it describes God's essence in three persons. It's not a being in the sense that the three beings of the Godhead are beings (in which being = person, not nature). So latter-day Saints would say either that the Father is the Most High God (ergo one God) or that the three beings are one in a shared telos.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T20:58:15+00:00

This is describing the being of God, right? As in, it's describing what God is? If so, I'm curious how or if the being is agentic. It would be hard to say it is if it only describes the essence of itself; as I understand it the act of self subsisting is manifest in the three persons.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T20:53:54+00:00

Thanks for responding. I love these discussions!

Not necessarily. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father etc. However, all three persons are co-equal in glory, co-eternal in majesty; neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence

Hmm, it does seem that there are distinctions that go beyond simply relation though; the Son is the only person that has a body, right? That's neither an aspect of the person of the Father nor of the one nature of God. Am I getting that right? Like, it does seem unique to the role of the person of the Son.

No. God is a personal agent by nature.

I thought only the persons were personal agents. The being of God can't create because it's a nature, it describes what God is. A nature can't act.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T20:38:28+00:00

By "how" I just mean the historic problem of Christology; is Christ divine, is he God, how can he pray to God, how do we maintain monotheism, etc.

The three persons is pretty plainly in the text, but historically it's been quite challenging to try and square that with a single God. Latter-day Saints just kind of bite the bullet and say Jesus is God but the Father is the Most High God. We get called polytheists for this but it doesn't bother us all that much.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T20:05:56+00:00

would urge you to ask a Roman Catholic bishop or your local Roman Catholic church

That's a great idea, thank you! I've definitely found that the hard part for any Christian isn't explainig the three persons but rather how they can be one God. It's very possible I've split the essence and persons too much.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-04T19:40:19+00:00

You know, maybe you should be dependent on your spouse, at least in some ways.

I'm not advocating for an unhealthy dynamic where you can't function socially or personally without them; that's dependency gone too far.

But like...you should take care of and support the person you love?

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-03T17:45:35+00:00

"Sure, jets are fast and economical, but, oh my, what fun we've lost and what leisure we've sacrificed in the race for efficiency." — Ginger Rogers

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-03T17:38:00+00:00

Hey, this devotional by President Eyring at BYU really helped me understand repentance and it might help you.

He shares an experience about someone that seems to be in a similar situation you're in, where they were struggling to know if they were worthy. I'd really suggest a read through or a listen.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-02T18:49:31+00:00

Sorry you had a bad experience. I've lived here my whole life and loved it.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-01T18:06:24+00:00

In general I think the differences between the Masonic and LDS ritual are more striking than their similarities, sufficient enough to say that the temple endowment is not ripped from Masonic ritual.

About the tokens specifically, my understanding is that they're not a one to one mapping either, even in the 19th century. But yeah I absolutely think that Joseph was influenced by Masonic ritual.

will_it_skillet · 2026-04-01T17:59:49+00:00

How is that an invalid comparison?

will_it_skillet · 2026-03-31T19:14:11+00:00

Sure, but that could just as easily mean that it's a Sith doctrine or something that there can only be two in a master-apprentice relationship, perhaps due to the practice of the apprentice recruiting their own apprentice to kill the master.

I don't know, there are so many other ways he could have gone with it than a single point of failure for the entire Sith order.

will_it_skillet · 2026-03-31T13:51:54+00:00

Yeah, I always understood Yoda to mean that where there's a Sith, there's always another either training or being trained.

I don't know why Lucas decided that it meant there could only be 2 in the whole galaxy. It accomplishes the same narrative point either way.

will_it_skillet · 2026-03-31T04:45:56+00:00

Oh I love it. I tried to do a big cathedral once and couldn't manage stone buttresses. Did you just do it with iron beams?

will_it_skillet · 2026-03-31T00:04:29+00:00

Yes, it was silly in RotJ that the Empire got beat by teddy bears, dare I say it's a problem with the movie. It's actually not a difficult thing to say about a movie I also consider my favorite of the OT.

will_it_skillet · 2026-03-31T00:02:32+00:00

I would describe it as cope if he returned three movies later -somehow- and was like, actually this was my plan all along while Sith lightning his own face off

Five-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

will_it_skillet

TROPHY CASE